Examining the Prospective English Teachers’ Pedagogical ...in the English Language Teaching...

International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 14 Number 3, 2018

© 2018 INASED

123

Examining the Prospective English Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge:

Canakkale Case*

Kürşat Cesur i

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

Abdullah Ertaş ii

Atılım University

Abstract

The study aims to investigate the pedagogical content knowledge of the prospective language teachers

in the English Language Teaching Department of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. The mixed

research method, sequential explanatory research design was used to collect and analyze the data.

Quantitative data obtained from 127 prospective teachers via the questionnaire were analyzed using

descriptive and inferential statistics. The researchers made use of content analysis in order to analyze

the qualitative data obtained from document analysis, observation procedures, and interviews of the

three participants. Themes and codes were created from the transcriptions of the qualitative data

collection instruments to conduct both within-case and cross-case analyses aiming to explain the

quantitative results. Results reveal that prospective teachers of English believe they do not have

required knowledge of the language they teach though they see themselves competent in other

knowledge domains. Though they believed they would use communicative methods to language

teaching, they preferred using grammar translation method while presenting the new vocabulary items.

What they believed they could do and what they actually did were also different considering their

knowledge on planning lessons, knowledge of their learners, and knowledge on assessment. Last but

not least, their knowledge domain was shaped not only by the teaching experience they had during the

Community Service Practices Course and the private courses they had given, but also by pre-service

teacher education. Bearing these results in mind, some implications for teacher education were

provided at the end of the study.

Keywords: EFL Teachers’ Knowledge Base, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Mixed Research

Method, Sequential Explanatory Research Design

DOI: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.146.9

-------------------------------

* This study is based on the doctoral dissertation, titled: "Examining Competencies of Prospective English

Teachers Through their Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study" submitted to the Institute of

Educational Sciences, Gazi University, of the first author under the supervision of the second author.

i Kürşat Cesur, Assist. Prof. Dr., Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, English Language Teaching, Turkey.

Correspondence: [email protected]

ii Abdullah Ertaş, Assist. Prof. Dr., Atılım University, School of Foreign Languages, Turkey. Email:

[email protected]


© 2018 INASED

124

Introduction

Recently, with the advent of technology, the need for international communication has

increased to a great extent. Thus, teaching and learning foreign languages have become really

important in most countries in the world. There have also been many innovations regarding foreign

language education in Turkey. EFL teachers who serve in state schools should have command of a

range of skills, competencies, and knowledge to meet the needs of the students. First and foremost,

EFL teachers need to have extensive knowledge of the subject matter. That is to say, they should be

equipped with a good command of English, have knowledge about language use, and the theoretical

background of the field. Even though language mastery is an important qualification, it is not enough

for an effective English language teacher. It is essential for a teacher of English to demonstrate

pedagogical competence and have a wide range of skills such as lesson planning, materials

development, classroom management, instructional organization, presentation of the subject matter,

and assessment (Demirel, 1989).

The main components of teaching profession have been defined under three dimensions:

general, subject matter (content), and pedagogical knowledge. When the studies carried out about the

areas of knowledge that a teacher should have are examined, several categories are proposed by

several researchers (Borg, 2003; Elbaz, 1981; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Golombek, 1998; Meijer et

al., 1999; Meijer et al., 2001). However, a new knowledge area called the ‘pedagogical content

knowledge’, which is as significant as the others, has been introduced. Although all the knowledge

components are critical in teacher development, the study of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is

relatively new in some disciplines. Being the pioneer of the term, Shulman (1987) proposed that this

form of knowledge is crucial for effective teaching as it relates to the capability to represent and

formulate content in a particular discipline in ways that are understandable to students. The PCK

concerns how teachers relate their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach)

to their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching), and how subject matter knowledge

is related to the process of pedagogical reasoning (Shulman, 1987). According to Shulman (1987: 8),

PCK “represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics,

problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of

learners, and presented for instruction”. PCK for foreign language teacher education refers to what

teachers know about teaching the target language to empower students to communicate in the target

language. PCK “is commonly believed to be a transformation of at least two constituent knowledge

domains: general pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge” (Gess-Newsome, 1999: 5). A

teacher with good PCK teaches a subject matter with appropriate instruction strategies. Namely, they

must have the knowledge of the subject matter, knowledge on planning lessons, knowledge of

learners, knowledge on teaching methods and techniques, and knowledge on assessment all together.

According to Tamir (1988), pedagogical knowledge is comprised of four components, which are

students, curriculum, evaluation, and instruction (that includes both teaching and management). Çakır

(2008: 15) also provides a comprehensive definition of pedagogical knowledge as acquiring “some

skills including the process and practices involved in classroom management, lesson plan, and

implementation. It also contains knowledge about teaching methods to be used and strategies for

evaluating students’ understanding.”

According to Freeman and Richards (1996), we need to know more about language teachers in

order to understand teaching well. Moreover, we need to understand more about prospective language

teachers’ perceptions of knowledge about language teaching in order to understand how effective the

education they have in the ELT departments is. Although PCK has been explored in a number of

studies in disciplines such as mathematics and science (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Grossman,

1990), teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in teaching English is still an understudied area. This

study attempts to fill the gap by examining the prospective English PCK as understanding their PCK

may help the universities to train better English teachers.


© 2018 INASED

125

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the prospective language teachers’ PCK. As

pedagogical content knowledge consists of the knowledge of the content, lesson planning, learners,

teaching methods and techniques, and assessment, the study aims to determine teacher competencies

regarding these issues. Therefore, the study investigates the following research questions:

1. What are the prospective English teachers’ perceptions of their own level of pedagogical

content knowledge?

2. To what extent do the prospective English teachers make use of their pedagogical content

knowledge? In their teaching practices, to what extent do they use their:

2.1. knowledge of English,

2.2. knowledge on planning lessons,

2.3. knowledge of their learners,

2.4. knowledge on teaching methods and techniques,

2.5. knowledge on assessment?

Methodology

Research studies on EFL teachers’ PCK generally examined the sources of teacher knowledge

(Akyel, 1997; Ariogul, 2006; Banegas, 2009; Johnston and Goettsch, 2000; Koçoğlu, 2009; Mok,

1994; Nespor, 1987; Richards, 1991; Sundusiyah, 2009; Zhang, 2008), and the relationship between

the teacher knowledge and classroom teaching practices (Popko, 2005; Saraç-Süzer, 2007a; Saraç-

Süzer, 2007b). They usually investigated the development of teacher knowledge by analyzing the

teaching practices. In the opinion of Borg (2003), without the analysis of teachers’ teaching practices,

a researcher limits the implications of the findings of his/her study in teacher knowledge research. In

such studies, generally qualitative data collection methods are used. Even if the researchers make use

of quantitative data collection methods, they support and explain its results with the help of the

qualitative ones. Pajares (1992; cited in Zhang, 2008: 25) explains why qualitative data collection

techniques are used so frequently by arguing that “beliefs cannot be directly observed or measured, but

must be inferred from what people say, intend, and do”.

In order to seek answers to the research questions, ‘the mixed research method’ was used in

the study in which quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, and approaches are

combined (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In this mixed research method, the researchers conducted

a questionnaire as the primary data collection tool and the data collection process was supported with

interviews, classroom observations and document analysis (lesson plans) which are qualitative data

collection tools. The mixed research method is used to get benefit from the strengths and to minimize

the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research in a single study (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004, McMillan & Schumacher, 1993). As a research design, the researchers use a

‘sequential explanatory design’ which consists of both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data.

The answer to the first research question is sought using a questionnaire which is part of the

quantitative phase of the study. According to the results of the first phase (quantitative), interview

questions were developed and the second research question was answered using different qualitative

data collection techniques in the second phase (qualitative) of the study which helped explain, or

elaborate on the quantitative results obtained in the first phase (Ivankova, Creswell, and Stick, 2006).


© 2018 INASED

126

Figure 1: Visual Model for the Mixed Research Method, Sequential Explanatory Research

Design Procedures (adapted from Ivankova et al., 2006: 16)

As it can clearly be seen in the figure above, the study began with the collection and analysis

of quantitative data. Then, the researchers planned the subsequent qualitative phase by developing the

interview questions and the observation protocol with the help of the quantitative findings. The

quantitative findings also provided criteria for identifying the three prospective teachers selected for

the second, qualitative phase. Later, qualitative data were collected by means of document analysis,

observation, and interviews. The analysis of the qualitative findings was used to explain and interpret

findings of the quantitative phase (Creswell et al., 2003). The results from the qualitative phase

extended and helped explain the initial quantitative findings. The quantitative and qualitative results

were integrated in the discussion and implications part (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).

Limitations of the Study

The selected case for the study was the prospective English teachers at the English Language

Teaching Department, at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (COMU), Turkey. Only one case was

chosen while collecting and analyzing the data. Therefore, the study findings were limited to the

selected case. Another limitation of the study was the self-reported data. Self-reported data is limited

as it rarely can be independently verified. Finally, the participants’ teaching experience is limited to

Phase Procedure Product

QUANTITATIVE Data

Collection

Questionnaire applied to 127

prospective teachers of English

Numeric data

QUANTITATIVE

Data Analysis

Reliability analysis

Descriptive statistics

Inferential statistics (Mann-Whitney U

Test)

SPSS quan. software v.17

Cronbach’s Alpha

Frequencies, mean

values

Value of U

Connecting Quantitative and

Qualitative Phases

Purposefully selecting three

participants based on maximal

variation principle

Developing interview questions and

observation procedure

Participants (n=3)

Interview guide and

observation procedure

Qualitative

Data Collection

Documents (lesson plans)

Observation

Individual face-to-face interviews with

3 participants

Text data (interview

transcripts, documents)

Audio-visual data (video

records)

Qualitative

Data Analysis

Coding and thematic analysis

Within-case and cross-case theme

development

Cross-thematic analysis

Codes and themes

Similar and different

themes and categories

Integration of the Quantitative

and Qualitative Results

Interpretation and explanation of the

quantitative and qualitative results

Discussion

Conclusion

Implications


© 2018 INASED

127

the one they got either at the Community Service Practices Course they took or at the private courses

they gave.

Setting and Participants

As Merriam (1998: 41) states, case studies give a chance of examining complex social units

consisting of multiple variables in understanding the relevant phenomena. As examining the

prospective English teachers’ PCK is a complex phenomenon, case study was chosen as a research

method. In this study, the participants were chosen following Maximum Variation sampling among

the ones who enrolled in the “Teaching Practice” course. As the quantitative results do not indicate

statistically significant difference between the genders, the researchers did not consider this variable

(gender) while selecting the participants of the qualitative phase. He, thus, selected Teacher 1 (T1),

who had teaching experience and was more successful (whose GPA was above 3,00), and Teacher 2

(T2), who was more successful, but with no teaching experience, and Teacher 3 (T3), who did not

have any teaching experience and was less successful (whose GPA was below 3,00).

Table 1 Participants Selected for the Qualitative Phase of the Study: Maximum Variation

Sampling

T1 T2 T3

Gender Female Male Male

Teaching Experience YES NO NO

GPA 3,01 3,10 2,82

All three prospective teachers agreed to participate in the qualitative phase of the study. While

selecting these participants, the researchers aimed to explain the quantitative results of the study in

more detail. In order to explain the significant differences between the experienced and inexperienced

prospective teachers, the researchers compared and contrasted T1 and T2’s teaching practices as they

both had GPA above 3.00. He analyzed T2 and T3’s teaching practices to see the differences due to

the participants’ GPA as they were both inexperienced. Finally, to find out the effect of being both

experienced and more successful student, the researchers analyzed the teaching practice of T1, who

was both experienced and more successful, and that of T3, who was both inexperienced and less

successful.

Data Collection and Analysis

The first part of the study was conducted to all prospective English teachers at COMU. A

questionnaire was administered to find out about their perceptions of their own competencies. In the

second part of the study, in which document analysis, observation and interviews were used, three

participants contributed to the study when they were having their “Teaching Practice” courses at

COMU. Before conducting the main study, the researchers analyzed the internal consistency of the

items of the questionnaire. Table 2 presents the internal consistency reliability of the items. 48 items in

the the questionnaire are shown to have a high degree of internal consistency with the value .95. This

value is acceptable according to Büyüköztürk (2006) who recommends levels of .70 or greater for

scales like these.

Table 2 Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient)

Questionnaire Alpha Reliability N

Valid Excluded Total

Items .95 104 8 112


© 2018 INASED

128

The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed by using descriptive and

inferential statistics. Prospective English teachers’ perceptions of their own level of teaching

competency in terms of their pedagogical content knowledge were analyzed through presenting the

means, percentages and frequencies obtained for each item through the SPSS program. The highest

and lowest mean values and the frequencies of the answers given to the items of the questionnaire

were discussed.

The qualitative data obtained from three prospective teachers of English were analyzed in

order to explain the initial quantitative findings. While analyzing the qualitative data, both within-case

and cross-case analyses (Merriam, 1998) were conducted. This enabled the researchers to group

common responses from different perspectives and focus on the parallelism and differences between

the participants (Patton, 1990; cited in Şallı-Çopur, 2008: 73). The researchers followed the set of

analytic activities proposed by Lune and Berg (2017: 184) while analyzing the data collected through

interviews, observations and document analysis. Firstly, data is collected and made into text. Then,

codes are analytically developed and identified in the data. Later, codes are transformed into

categorical themes. Data collection materials are sorted by these categories, identifying similar

phrases, patterns, and relationships. Identified patterns are considered in light of previous research, and

a small set of generalizations is established. Finally, researchers wrote a preliminary analysis for each

prospective teacher, which helped them in their case and cross-case analysis.

Findings and Discussion

Comparative analysis of the quantitative and qualitative results is discussed and “a general

profile” (Baxter and Lederman, 1999: 154) of the prospective English teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University is inferred.

RQ1. What are the prospective English teachers’ perceptions of their own level of

pedagogical content knowledge?

To find the answer to this research question, a questionnaire was conducted. The overall mean

score of all the items in the questionnaire was found to be 4.09, which shows the prospective teachers

agreed that they have the required competencies in general. They believe that they have good

command of PCK. When the items are analyzed one by one, none of the items’ mean values points a

degree of disagreement (below 2.5). To find out whether there were any differences in what they

believed they could do and what they actually did, the second research question emerged.

RQ2. To what extent do the prospective English teachers make use of their pedagogical

content knowledge in their teaching practices?

Analyzing the participants’ different domains of knowledge through descriptive statistics, the

researchers found out that prospective teachers agreed they have the required competencies in general.

However, quantitative data analysis results indicate that their knowledge of English is the only

knowledge domain the mean value of which is below 4.00.

RQ2.1 Prospective teachers’ knowledge of English

Though the prospective teachers of English see themselves competent in other knowledge

domains, they believe that they do not have required knowledge of the language they teach. The

results show similarities with those of Şahin’s (2006). In his study, participants regarded themselves as

inadequate in the knowledge of a language.


© 2018 INASED

129

Table 3 Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge of English

Items N Mean SD

1. I can apply my knowledge of phonology (the sound system) to help students

develop oral, reading and writing skills in English.

127 4,1102 ,68113

2. I can apply my knowledge of morphology (the structure of words) to assist

students’ development of oral and literacy skills in English.

127 4,0866 ,69034

3. I can apply my knowledge of syntax (phrase and sentence structure) to assist

students in developing written and spoken English.

127 4,1024 ,76464

4. I can apply my understanding of semantics (word/sentence meaning) to assist

students in using a wide range of vocabulary in English.

127 4,2992 ,68214

5. I can apply my knowledge of pragmatics (the effect of context on language) to

help students communicate effectively.

126 4,1984 ,72685

6. I have a good command of English. 127 4,0315 ,73395

7. I can use the English language to communicate clearly and effectively while

speaking.

127 3,9134 ,79705

8. It is easy for me to understand conferences, radio and television talks in

English.

127 3,8976 ,79517

9. I can read and understand popular novels and story books in English with no

use or only little use of a dictionary.

127 3,8740 ,81642

10. I can write all types of essays, letters, etc. to communicate without having any

difficulties.

126 3,4762 ,90963

11. I’m good at pronouncing the English words, stress and intonation patterns

correctly.

127 3,6614 ,94466

12. I have a wide knowledge of vocabulary. 127 3,6299 ,79486

13. I know the English grammar very well. 127 4,1811 ,76030

Total Mean of the items above: 3.9586

Being both experienced and more successful, T1 believes that subject matter knowledge of the

teachers is more important than their pedagogical knowledge. She expresses that “teachers cannot

overcome the unexpected problems and it is impossible for them to create new opportunities for the

students unless they have good command of English”. As she attached more importance to the

knowledge of English, her knowledge of English was the best when compared with other participants

of the study. Unlike T1, T2 considered pedagogical knowledge to be more important than the subject

matter knowledge and he made more grammatical mistakes than T1 did. To teach effectively,

prospective teachers should not underestimate the knowledge of English and pay the attention to it

with all its grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Not being competent in subject matter knowledge

prevents being a good teacher in the classroom (Guyton & Farokhi, 1987; Minor, Onwuegbuzie &

Witcher, 2000).

Another finding of quantitative data analysis reveals that that the prospective teachers agree

they can apply their understanding of semantics (word/sentence meaning) to assist their students in

using a wide range of vocabulary in English ( X item 4= 4,30). Observing the prospective teachers’

teaching practices, the researchers realized that two of the prospective teachers taught the new words

by showing their pictures and providing sample sentences of these words. However, one of them,

having neither any teaching experience nor a GPA above 3.00, just showed the pictures and translated

the vocabulary items into Turkish, and made use of students’ mother tongue to teach the words. He did

not use his knowledge of semantics while teaching vocabulary to learners. According to Johnston and

Goettsch’s (2000) study, experienced teachers put more emphasis on using examples during

explanations. In the present study, not only experienced but also more successful students made use of

examples while clarifying the meanings of the words taught. From these remarks, it can be concluded

that knowledge of semantics is developed not only by teaching experience, but also by pre-service

teacher education. Another important finding of the quantitative data analysis is that the prospective

teachers having a GPA above 3.00 can apply their knowledge of phonology (the sound system) better

than the less successful students can.


© 2018 INASED

130

Table 4 Mann-Whitney U Test Presenting the Difference in Item 1 in Terms of Participants’

GPA

Item 1 GPA N Mean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

U p

I can apply my knowledge of

phonology (the sound system) to

help students develop oral, reading

and writing skills in English.

3.00 and Above 22 76,41 1681,00

822.000

.047 Between 2.00

and 2.99

105

61,40 6447,00

Qualitative data analysis results also verify this finding as T1 and T2 made less pronunciation

mistakes than T3, though T3 made very little use of the target language.

RQ2.2 Prospective teachers’ knowledge on planning lessons

Among the other knowledge domains, prospective teachers’ knowledge on planning lessons

has the highest total mean value. They believe they can prepare effective lesson plans.

Table 5 Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge on Planning Lessons

Items N Mean SD

14. I can plan my lessons considering my students’ language levels, learning

styles, interests and needs.

127 4,5197 ,64057

15. I can write aims and behavioral objectives of the lesson clearly. 127 4,1732 ,76733

16. I can prepare lesson plans that will help me reach my aims. 127 4,3701 ,68780

17. I can decide on the ways of how to make students ready for the lesson in

the warm-up session.

127 4,4252 ,69602

18. I can relate the lesson with the previous and following lessons. 127 4,4252 ,66092

19. I can write clear instructions for different parts of the lesson plan. 127 4,5512 ,66319

20. I can make use of various activities. 126 4,5476 ,62747

Total Mean of the items above: 4,4303

When the lesson plans of the participant prospective teachers were analyzed, it was found out

that they had necessary theoretical knowledge to plan their lessons in an appropriate way. However,

they all had either few or some problems in implementing the lesson plan while they were teaching

vocabulary to the students. T1 prepared and followed her lesson plan better than the other participants

did. Prospective teachers of COMU strongly agree that they can write clear instructions for different

parts of the lesson plan ( X item 19= 4,55). When their lesson plan assessment forms were analyzed, it

was found out that their instructions for the activities were clear. They had some problems while they

were doing what they actually planned though. All three participants of the qualitative study had

problems regarding time allotment. In an earlier study, Kwo (1996) specified two major concerns of

prospective teachers. They were pacing in relation to time constraints and unexpected learning

difficulties. Both concerns were also observed in this study. Student teachers’ predicted time allotted

to each activity did not match with the one they actually used in their teaching practice.

Interestingly, only one out of 127 participants did not agree that he/she can decide on the ways

of how to make students ready for the lesson and plan his/her lessons considering his/her students’

language levels, learning styles, interests and needs. Observation results indicated that T1 and T2

made use of video and storytelling successively. However, T3 preferred to ask questions about the

pictures in students’ books, which caused students get uninterested. One out of three participants, both

less successful and in experienced, could not achieve to keep students’ interests alive and consider his

students’ language levels, learning styles, interests and needs. Moreover, nearly all of the prospective

teachers believe that they can make use of various activities while planning their lessons. Their


© 2018 INASED

131

answers to the questionnaire shows only one out of 127 participants did not agree that he/she can make

use of various activities in his/her lesson plan. Observation results verify this finding. Either worked

effectively or not, T1, T2 and T3 tried to make use of various activities while teaching the new words.

RQ2.3 Prospective teachers’ knowledge of learners

With the highest mean value among the items of the questionnaire, item 21 shows that

prospective teachers can use appropriate sources and materials ( X item 21= 4,57) with their

knowledge of learners and their learners’ different characteristics ( X total mean = 4,27).

Table 6 Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge of Learners

Items N Mean SD

21. I can use appropriate sources and materials for my students. 127 4,5748 ,63645

22. I can forecast possible questions to be asked and provide their possible

answers.

127 3,9921 ,71820

23. I can explain the terms and concepts my students have difficulty in

understanding.

127 4,2205 ,71173

24. I can explain what should be done to clarify the terms and concepts my

students have difficulty in understanding.

126 4,1905 ,67781

25. I can make use of the target language considering my students’ levels. 127 4,3465 ,72788

26. I can motivate my students to learn. 126 4,4841 ,74548

27. I can keep their motivation and interest alive. 127 4,3543 ,77180

28. I can deal with almost any learning problems of the students. 127 3,7953 ,89388

29. I have an understanding of how students develop and learn. 126 4,1746 ,69374

30. I’m aware of the learning styles (visual, verbal, aural, logical, etc.) of my

students.

126 4,4762 ,75593

31. I know the learning strategies (using background knowledge, making

predictions, summarizing, cooperating, etc.) of my students.

127 4,3543 ,77180


Having GPA above 3.00, T1 and T2 adapted the reading comprehension questions and the

activities given in students’ book so that they would be appropriate for their students’ interests, needs,

and levels. However, T3 did not change any of the questions as he believed there was no need to do so.

In adapting materials considering students’ needs and levels, participants’ GPA played more important

role than their teaching experiences. The least successful prospective teacher tended to teach

vocabulary without paying sufficient attention to students’ English proficiency, needs, and

backgrounds.

In the quantitative phase of the study, it was also found out that prospective teachers were not

that much sure about dealing with almost any learning problems of their students ( X item 28= 3,79),

and forecasting possible questions to be asked and providing their possible answers( X item 22= 3,99).

In the qualitative phase of the study, the results were similar. Though all the participants provided

some anticipated problems and their solutions, they experienced more problems than they had

anticipated. “To know how to speak about teaching is not the same as knowing how to actually teach”

(Strauss, 1993: 289). In other words, what they believed they could do and what they actually did were

different. Unexpected learning difficulties what Kwo (1996) specified as one of the major concerns of

the student teachers were also observed in their teaching practices while they were dealing with the

problems. Even though all three prospective teachers had problems in their teaching practice,

observers reached to a consensus that T1, who was experienced, was the best at dealing with both

anticipated and unexpected problems.


© 2018 INASED

132

RQ2.4 Prospective teachers’ knowledge on teaching methods and techniques

According to the quantitative data analysis results, the prospective teachers believe they are

knowledgeable about the methods and techniques to be used in their teaching practice. The results also

show that the prospective teachers can make use of an eclectic method or communicative approach

better than they do traditional teaching methods.

Table 7 Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge on Teaching Methods and

Techniques

Items N Mean SD

32. I can make use of appropriate methods and techniques in the teaching

process.

122 4,2213 ,68650

I can make use of appropriate

methods and techniques to improve

students’

33. reading skills.

127 4,3228 ,77544

34. writing skills.

127 4,0394 ,85821

35. listening skills.

127 4,1496 ,76717

36. speaking skills.

127 4,0709 ,77849

37. vocabulary knowledge.

127 4,5354 ,71041

38. knowledge of grammar.

127 4,5197 ,74376

39. pronunciation.

126 4,0159 ,86703

40. I can make use of traditional teaching methods (Grammar Translation,

Direct Method, etc.).

127 3,6378 1,10316

41. I can make use of communicative approach in English language teaching

to improve my students’ communication skills.

127 4,2756 ,67468

42. I can make use of an eclectic method (combining the techniques of many

other methods and approaches).

127 4,3465 ,75989


Observation and interview results reveal that this is not the case for less successful students.

T1 and T2 achieved to use various appropriate methods and techniques to teach vocabulary. However,

T3, whose GPA is below 3.00, used grammar translation method in general. The students with a GPA

above 3.00 are more successful in choosing the appropriate method and technique while teaching

vocabulary. The observation results of T1 and T2’s teaching practices make it clear that more

successful prospective teachers tend to combine the techniques of different methods and approaches

better than the unsuccessful one does. As in adapting materials considering students’ needs and levels,

participants’ GPA again played more important role than their teaching experiences or their genders in

choosing appropriate methods and techniques to be used. This verifies the positive impact of the

courses taken in the ELT departments on the prospective teachers’ knowledge base discussed in the

literature (Atay, Kaşlıoğlu & Kurt, 2010; Banegas, 2009; Koçoğlu, 2009).

Except for the two out of 127 participants, prospective teachers believe that they can make use

of communicative approach or an eclectic method. In contrast, 53 participants (41,7 percent) either

disagree with or feel neutral about the fact that they can make use of traditional teaching methods such

as grammar translation and direct method. However, the observation results and interview transcripts

revealed that all three prospective teachers preferred grammar translation and direct method while

presenting the new words while they were supporting their presentation with some eclectic and

communicative activities. Once more, Strauss’s (1993) argument is verified as their perceptions of

what they could do were different from their actual teaching practices.


© 2018 INASED

133

RQ2.5 Prospective teachers’ knowledge on assessment

According to Item 48, having the highest mean value related to their knowledge on

assessment, prospective teachers believe they can reflect the results of the classroom assessment

process to their future practices. Also, Item 47 with the second highest mean value suggests they can

give appropriate feedback.

Table 8 Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge on Assessment

Items N Mean SD

43. I can determine the aims of assessment practices. 127 3,9843 ,77648

44. I’m well informed about the uses of a wide variety of assessment

strategies.

127 3,7244 ,90569

45. I can choose the methods of assessment which is appropriate for my

students.

126 4,0000 ,83905

46. I can integrate all language skills while assessing the students’ success. 127 4,0787 ,83196

47. I can give appropriate feedback according to the results of the

measurement process.

127 4,2520 ,70112

48. I can reflect the results of the classroom assessment process to my future

practices.

127 4,3386 ,65732


Their answers to the interview questions verify these findings. All of them believed that they

would change the activities in their lesson plans and use different test techniques to assess students’

comprehension if they had a second chance to teach the same vocabulary. Therefore, it can be

concluded that they tend to reflect the results of the assessment process to their future practices.

Another result that can also be drawn from the quantitative phase of the study is that participants do

not perceive themselves as being knowledgeable about the uses of wide variety of assessment

strategies (Item 44). It was also observed that prospective teachers used a very limited number of

techniques to assess students’ comprehension although there were many traditional and alternative test

techniques to be used. This may mean that they are not really knowledgeable about various test

techniques to be used in their teaching practices.

The quantitative data analysis results regarding the teaching experience of the participants

reveal that experienced prospective teachers tend to use multiple-choice and matching questions more

frequently than the inexperienced ones do.

Table 9 Mann-Whitney U Test Presenting the Difference in the Use of Test Techniques in Terms

of Participants’ Teaching Experience

Test Techniques Teaching

Experience

N Mean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

U p

Multiple-choice

NO 53 56,15 2976,00

1545,000

.034 YES 74 69,62 5152,00

Matching

NO 53 52,72 2794,00

1363,000

.002 YES 74 72,08 5334,00

Köksal and Cesur (2012: 48) also found in their study that the more experienced the

instructors are, the more efficient they find the multiple-choice questions prepared by the test

constructors working for the testing office. In their study, instructors mostly preferred to use multiple-

choice and matching. Similarly, T1 assessed her students’ comprehension using a matching activity

and T2 expressed that he would have assessed his students’ success through multiple-choice questions


© 2018 INASED

134

and matching activities if he had had second chance to teach the same topic. As the prospective

teachers become more experienced, they tend to use multiple-choice questions and matching activities.

All in all, when their pedagogical content knowledge is investigated, prospective teachers’

GPA plays the most important role explaining the differences among them. Some other differences can

also be explained considering whether they have any teaching experience or not.

Conclusion and Implications

There was a mismatch between what the teacher candidates knew theoretically and what they

did in their actual teaching practice. A well-structured ELT program will narrow the gap between the

teaching practices and theoretical pedagogy of language teacher preparation courses. Thus, “it is the

responsibility of teacher education programs to offer ways for teachers to see links between theory and

practice” (Bigelow & Ranney, 2005: 199). When teachers manage to combine the theory and practice

and develop their pedagogical content knowledge, “knowledge gained from both will benefit both”

(Bigelow & Ranney, 2005: 199). Similarly, as Popko (2005) recommends, teaching about English in

grammar and linguistic courses with separate methodology courses may not be the best way to

approach English language teacher preparation. Knowledge of English itself can be helpful; however,

no knowledge is helpful without application. Therefore, the ELT programs should be revised. Courses

that are designed to develop teacher candidates’ subject matter knowledge such as ‘Contextual

Grammar’ and ‘Vocabulary Knowledge’ should also ensure that they have protocols for applying

certain aspects of knowledge about language to their own teaching. For example, courses named

‘Pedagogical Grammar’ or ‘Pedagogical Vocabulary’, in which the focus would be on methods of

teaching grammar and vocabulary, can be integrated in the ELT program. In such courses, the teacher

candidates can be taught different grammatical issues and the ways how they can teach such issues to

their learners. As Bartels (2009: 130) suggests, the courses they took at the ELT departments “need to

stop focusing on academic practices, such as reading studies and discussing theories”. Instead, these

courses should provide teacher candidates with learning experiences in which (1) they use or develop

their knowledge about language to ‘engage in teaching-like tasks’ and (2) they learn to design and

carry out practice activities which help them acquire knowledge about language.

The present study verifies the fact that subject matter and pedagogical competencies have a

strong connection with teachers’ performance and in-class teaching practice. T1, one of the

participants of this study, had a good command of English and her subject matter knowledge was

much better than that of the other participants. This in turn influenced her teaching practice in a

positive way. Believing that subject matter knowledge is more important than pedagogical knowledge,

T1 made fewer mistakes than T2 did, who attached more importance to pedagogical knowledge.

Moreover, contrary to T1, T3 had problems regarding his subject matter knowledge. Thus, he had

some problems in his teaching practice as well. Therefore, EFL teacher education programs should

raise their student teachers’ awareness on subject matter (content) knowledge.

EFL teacher education programs need to provide further opportunities for EFL teacher

candidates to develop their content knowledge: grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and so on. To be

able to explain the concepts in their classrooms effectively, teachers need to have willingness and

confidence to grapple with the concepts at deep level (Hislam & Cajkler, 2005: 311). Grammatical

knowledge at a deep level requires intensive teaching. Moreover, in the opinion of Pemberton (2003),

there are three main ways of learning vocabulary: memorizing, using and recycling. He suggests that

in order to avoid forgetting what one has learned, he/she should learn words repeatedly, with

increasing intervals between learning sessions. As it can be understood from their statements,

continuous and intensive teaching of both vocabulary and grammar should be provided to the teacher

candidates in the ELT departments. Rather than the courses taught only in their first years of education

such as ‘Contextual Grammar’, ‘Vocabulary Knowledge’, and ‘Listening and Phonetics’, future

teachers of English should be provided more courses which will help their knowledge of grammar,

vocabulary and pronunciation develop in time till they graduate. Therefore, courses taught at the ELT


© 2018 INASED

135

program should be revised so that the prospective teachers can develop their subject matter knowledge

not only in their first years, but also in the other three years of their education.

Understanding teacher knowledge requires understanding its sources as these sources shape

teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, and they affect the teachers’ development of

knowledge (Tsui, 2003). Teacher knowledge is generally accepted to be constructed from four

possible sources: teacher education, disciplinary background, apprenticeship of observation, and

classroom teaching experience (Grossman, 1990; Richards, 1998; Tsui, 2003). Bearing these sources

in mind, disciplinary background and teacher education is provided to the prospective teachers of

English in the ELT department of COMU by means of the courses they take during their four-year-

education. However, they only have apprenticeship of observation in the fall term, and classroom

teaching in the spring term of their last year. Future teachers of English can be given the opportunities

to assist the instructors working at universities. Language teacher education program can organize new

projects with the help of which ELT students can observe the instructors who teach English at

different levels to the preparatory students of the School of Foreign Languages as “observation is a

powerful source of insight and discovery and can help the prospective teachers develop new strategies

for teaching” (Crandall, 1998; cited in Zhang, 2008: 235).

In the four-year-program, ELT students should not only be provided with apprenticeship of

observation but also be given the chance to teach English to the preparatory students which will

develop their classroom teaching experience which is generally considered to be the most important

source of knowledge about teaching (Grossman, 1990; Tsui, 2003). Experience is a continuous

lifelong phenomenon which “means that all experience shapes or shades in some way further

experience” (McCaughtry, 2005: 391). Teacher education program should organize and support new

relationships between the new and experienced teachers (Freeman, 2002). Therefore, prospective

teachers’ teaching practices can be enhanced by providing them with new opportunities to have more

teaching experience. To further illustrate, the students of ELT departments can be ‘assistant teachers’

of the instructors working at universities accompanying them one or two hours a week in their courses

at the preparatory classes of the School of Foreign Languages. This will also enable the pre-service

English language teachers to carry out more practicum hours than they do currently. Trying to teach an

hour or two in a week to a student learning English, each prospective teacher will benefit from his/her

tutorial practice and find the chance of exploring his/her own weaknesses and strengths regarding their

PCK, which will also help them be more experienced English language teachers.

“Reflection in response to their own classrooms helps teachers contextualize their personal

practical knowledge, thus making meaning of this knowledge” (Golombek, 1998: 461). Therefore,

language teacher education programs should foster reflection that contextualizes teacher knowledge.

Prospective teachers should be taught to conduct action research effectively. By conducting action

research, they can directly examine what they know about the language, the curriculum, the students,

the instructional strategies, and the ways of assessing students. This will in turn help them realize what

they did in the past, are doing now and will do to teach more effectively in the future considering their

own teaching practices. As Ariogul also (2006: 157) suggests, self-reflection and collaboration

opportunities need to be created in pre-service training. With the help of the questions asked during the

interviews, they shared their experiences of teaching. This perhaps let them the chance to talk about

and understand their knowledge for the first time. Realizing what they know and what they further

need to know may help them develop their knowledge base.

EFL teacher education programs ought to find ways to raise teacher candidates’ awareness

that knowledge of learners plays a significant role in effective EFL teaching as the participants seem to

have difficulties in anticipating the problems they would face. According to the results obtained from

the quantitative data, inexperienced prospective teachers thought that they would anticipate students’

problems effectively and solve these problems during their classroom teaching practices. After

observing their actual teaching practices, qualitative data results revealed that experienced prospective

teachers were much better in anticipating and solving the problems than the inexperienced teachers

were. Prospective teachers were not aware of their actual capacity to deal with the problems in their


© 2018 INASED

136

classes. Thus, teacher education programs should provide the future teachers of English with

opportunities to raise their awareness of possible problems they will face when they become real

teachers, to examine the causes and the negative effects of the problems, and to consider and practice

effective strategies to deal with the problems. To achieve these, a course named ‘Dealing with

Problematic Classes’ can be integrated to the program. Instruction of this course should be based on

problem-based learning approach in which “students receive a problem and work in teams to try to

identify the nature of the problem and the resources they will need to solve the problem” (Major &

Palmer, 2006: 623). This course can teach prospective teachers what to do if the students are all at

different levels, if they keep using their own language, if they are uncooperative, if they do not want to

talk (Harmer, 1998), if they do not understand the instructions, and if they have some misconceptions

regarding grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and other skill areas.

References

Akyel, A. (1997). Experienced and student EFL teachers’ instructional thoughts and actions. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 53, 678-704.

Ariogul, S. (2006). Exploring of teacher knowledge base: A qualitative study of English as a foreign

language (EFL) teachers’ practical knowledge in Turkey. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Atay, D., Kaşlıoğlu, Ö. & Kurt, G. (2010). The pedagogical content knowledge development of

prospective teachers through an experiential task. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,

2, 1421-1425

Banegas, D. L. (2009). Content knowledge in teacher education: Where professionalisation lies.

ELTED, 12. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from www.elted.net/issues/volume-12/index.htm

Bartels, N. (2009). Knowledge about language. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds.), The

Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 125-134). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baxter, J. A. & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content

knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content

knowledge (pp. 147-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bigelow, M. H. & Ranney, S. E. (2005). Pre-service ESL teachers’ knowledge about language and its

transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher

education (pp. 179-200). New York: Springer.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language

teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (6. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning

in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-298.

Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research

designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. B. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Çakır, R. (2008). Preservice and inservice basic education computer teachers’ professional growth in

terms of their perceptions of teaching, pedagogical competencies and subject matter

knowledge. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.


© 2018 INASED

137

Demirel, Ö. (1989). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin yeterlilikleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi

Dergisi, 4, 5-26.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry,

11(1), 43-71.

Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language

Teaching, 35, 1-13.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher

education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.) (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Gess-Newsome, (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-

Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-17).

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly,

32(3), 447-464.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New

York: Teacher College Press.

Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject

matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher

Education, 36(3), 37-42.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman.

Hislam, J. & Cajkler, W. (2005). Teacher trainee’s explicit knowledge of grammar and primary

curriculum requirements in England. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language

teacher education (pp. 295-312). New York: Springer.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory

design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.

Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose

time has come. Journal Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching:

Explanations by experienced teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 437-

468.

Koçoğlu, Z. (2009). Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service

teachers in language education. Procedia – Social and behavioral Sciences. 1(1), 2734-2737.

Köksal, D. & Cesur, K. (2012). Students and instructors’ perceptions of objective tests used to assess

language performance at university level. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 8(1),

41-53.

Kwo, O. (1996). Learning to teach English in Hong Kong classrooms: Patterns of reflections. In D.

Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 295-319).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


© 2018 INASED

138

Lune, H. & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for social sciences (9th ed.). Vivar,

Malaysia: Pearson.

Major, C. H. & Palmer, B. (2006). Reshaping teaching and learning: The transformation of faculty

pedagogical content knowledge. Higher Education, 51(4), 619–647.

McCaughtry, N. (2005). Elaborating pedagogical content knowledge: What it means to know students

and think about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 11(4), 379–395.

McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York:

Harper Collins College Publishers.

Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge

about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching & Teacher Education, 15, 59-84.

Meijer P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijard, D. (2001). Similarities and differences in teachers’ practical

knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3),

171-184.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Witcher, A. E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of

characteristics of effective teachers: A multi-stage mixed method analysis. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Lexington, KY.

Mok, W. E. (1994). Reflecting on reflections: A case study of experienced and inexperienced ESL

teachers. System, 22, 93-111.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of curriculum studies, 19(4),

317-328.

Pemberton, R. (2003). Remembering vocabulary. Center for Language Education, HKUST. Retrieved

August 10, 2012, from http://lc.ust.hk/~sac/advice/english/vocabulary/V4.htm

Popko, J. (2005). How MA-TESOL students use knowledge about language in teaching ESL classes.

In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 387-404). New

York: Springer.

Richards, J. C. (1991). Content knowledge and instructional practice in second language teacher

education. Originally published in J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown Roundtable on Languages

and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Retrieved July15, 2011,

from http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/content-knowledge-and-

instructional-practice.pdf

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge, UK:


Richards, J. C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Saraç-Süzer, S. H. (2007a). Examining methodological issues through pedagogical and practical

knowledge of experienced teachers: A case study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Hacettepe University: Ankara.


© 2018 INASED

139

Saraç-Süzer, S. H. (2007b). Teacher knowledge on grammar teaching: A case study. Hacettepe

University Journal of Education, 32, 255-265.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds and learning:

Implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 279-290.

Sundusiyah, A. (2009). A self-study: Improving pedagogical content knowledge of pronunciation

teaching [Abstract]. CELT Journal,9(1). Retrieved August 22, 2012, from

http://www.journalcelt.com/2011/12/self-study-improving-pedagogical.html

Şahin, Y. (2006). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin eğitbilimsel ve alan bilgisi açısından değerlendirilmesi

[An evaluation of foreign language teachers from the perspectives of education and field

knowledge]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University: Ankara.

Şallı-Çopur, D. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in initial years of service: A case study on the graduates

of METU foreign language education program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, METU:

Ankara.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. B. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge:


Zhang, W. (2008). In search of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers' knowledge of

vocabulary instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University.

Examining the Prospective English Teachers’ Pedagogical ...in the English Language Teaching...

Documents

Transcript of Examining the Prospective English Teachers’ Pedagogical ...in the English Language Teaching...